Question About the WTC Core Collapse

[Mr.Herbert]

Hello,

This is my first post & thread so please take it easy on me! For the past year I have been working for the CIA, FBI, FEMA, NIST, and the Bush administration. The location of my work is not classified as I am well known at the ATS site. To them, I am the beast... the shill..the troll...whatever the favorite term for the day is to label someone with common sense.

My problem, i am not at all good with physics and engineering. I had a question asked of me in regards to the last part of the core than remained standing for a short time after the collapse. I was asked WHY it fell straight down after the global collapse had occurred and why it didn't fall "over". I really don't have an educated guess as to how or why.

Not sure if this has ever been brought up in here. I do come in here often to read the threads, but don't recall ever seeing any such question.

Any help you could give me would be much appreciated.

Thanks

[uk_dave]

Why should it have fallen over?

For it to fall to one side or another it would have to pivot about a point near to ground level. Since there was several storeys of debris piled up there and the lower columns were still connected to the foundations, it's hard to see how it could pivot.

However, since the core (just like all of the steel frame), was made up of lengths of steel with mechanical fixings at the top and bottom, it's not hard to imagine that the tremendous forces applied to these sections during the collapse would have weakened those connections, perhaps more so in some areas than in others.

By causing a weakening of the connections, we are left with a massive vertical load which would be forcing the weakest connections to move out of upright sufficient for the vertical steel to break loose and fall vertically.

If people want to imagine the columns are all one continuous piece of steel from foundation to roof, that's their problem.

[Miragememories]

Why should it have fallen over?

For it to fall to one side or another it would have to pivot about a point near to ground level. Since there was several storeys of debris piled up there and the lower columns were still connected to the foundations, it's hard to see how it could pivot.

However, since the core (just like all of the steel frame), was made up of lengths of steel with mechanical fixings at the top and bottom, it's not hard to imagine that the tremendous forces applied to these sections during the collapse would have weakened those connections, perhaps more so in some areas than in others.

By causing a weakening of the connections, we are left with a massive vertical load which would be forcing the weakest connections to move out of upright sufficient for the vertical steel to break loose and fall vertically.

If people want to imagine the columns are all one continuous piece of steel from foundation to roof, that's their problem.

Of course for the remaining core to all drop straight down at the same time without toppling, would require simultaneous removal of all remaining support at the same time.

Hmm...

MM

[A W Smith]

gravity pulls straight down. The debris that fell surrounding the core no doubt damaged the columns near the bottom. all that would have to happen is a load transfer to adjacent columns and they would fail progressively. since the core is a hollow grid of columns and not solid like a tree. there exists no fulcrum to support the core long enough for it to fall sideways. anything that would even momentarily hold as a fulcrum would instantly fail as its load was multiplied by failure of adjacent columns.

To answer their next question. Which I know is coming. No the spire steel didn't turn to "dust" as seen in some videos. When It fell it shed the debris it collected from the surrounding floors that piled onto the core floor areas.

[beachnut]

Of course for the remaining core to all drop straight down at the same time without toppling, would require simultaneous removal of all remaining support at the same time.

Hmm...

MM

Thank you for the CTer view of magic thermite bolts. Good job.

Since the core was not made to support lateral loads the 500 to 700 foot section of core was ready to come down with the wind. With the Shell gone the core was without major lateral support. Since gravity acts on earth in one direction; the core followed the force on it. Down.

In the magic world of CT woo it was a beam weapon vaporized it, thermite charges did it but they were invisible, a small nuke took it down, a dog did it, what ever you will get the same junk from MM and other truthers who would be hard pressed to find a fact on 9/11.

[Mr.Herbert]

Thank you!
And yes... the baseball sized mini nukes was brought up!! lmfao

[beachnut]

gravity pulls straight down. The debris that fell surrounding the core no doubt damaged the columns near the bottom. all that would have to happen is a load transfer to adjacent columns and they would fail progressively. since the core is a hollow grid of columns and not solid like a tree. there exists no fulcrum to support the core long enough for it to fall sideways. anything that would even momentarily hold as a fulcrum would instantly fail as its load was multiplied by failure of adjacent columns.

To answer their next question. Which I know is coming. No the spire steel didn't turn to "dust" as seen in some videos. When It fell it shed the debris it collected from the surrounding floors that piled onto the core floor areas.

with a total of 248 tons of TNT energy from the gravity collapse in each tower, the damage was extensive as seen. The standing sections were like a ruler that has sections with brass terminals, it flips end on end. The sections had to be damaged and fell straigh down with gravity as you say. The sections hidden in the collapse debris could of finally folded in sections in to the ground.

Of course the magic stuff is just camera blur, but how many times have I seen idiots say it vaporized.

[Rahne Everson]

Of course for the remaining core to all drop straight down at the same time without toppling, would require simultaneous removal of all remaining support at the same time.

Hmm...

If people want to imagine the columns are all one continuous piece of steel from foundation to roof, that's their problem.

HMM...

[maccy]

The core wasn't a single object like a tree, it was 47 separate steel box columns. They would have been severely damaged by the rest of the building that fell on them and have lost the lateral support of the perimeter columns (via the hat truss). I imagine that most of the floors in the core area would have been knocked out by the collapse. The weakest point of the box columns is likely to be where they were joined together - so I can imagine each of the columns that remained standing after the main collapse would fail and a different point and fall in a different way. Some indeed, may have fallen sideways, but they whole core would not have fallen in the same direction and stayed intact while falling (ie toppling like a tree). Add the dust and smoke and you have the remnants of a core that falls pretty much straight down, as far as anybody can tell.

Remember as well, that the scale of the buildings is huge. I think people expect them to behave as a much smaller building (or even a much smaller solid object) would behave.

The question to fire back: how many controlled demolitions have you seen where the building collapses from the top down and part of the core is left standing for a few seconds?

[Myriad]

Here's a useful link: The Falling Chimney Web Page. (http://myweb.lmu.edu/gvarieschi/chimney/chimney.html). You're looking at the "shear stress" scenario (the Detroit chimney, on the left) where breakage occurs near the base.

The difference is that the WTC core was not designed to be self-supporting, unlike freestanding chimneys, so its resistance to shear, compared to its mass, was considerably less. Thus the base breaks at a much closer angle to vertical, after only a few degrees of tilt at most, before any appreciable lateral movement or angular acceleration has had a chance to occur. Once the base breaks off (or more likely, crumbles, in any case no longer supporting the weight above it), the gravitational acceleration of the upper part, straight down, happens much faster than any continued rotation from rotational inertia can tilt it farther sideways (and there's no more torque to further accelerate the rotation). As the bottom of the upper part hits the ground, it breaks again from shear stress which is now even greater due to the downward velocity.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jhunter1163]

CT nuts have no grasp of physics at all. They know as much about inertia as they do about similes.

ETA: Am I the only one who finds Rahne's avatar a bit disturbing?

[Rahne Everson]

CT nuts have no grasp of physics at all. They know as much about inertia as they do about similes.

ETA: Am I the only one who finds Rahne's avatar a bit disturbing?

Awww, I am a bit disturbing, thank you :)

[A W Smith]

ETA: Am I the only one who finds Rahne's avatar a bit disturbing?

You mean.. Thats NOT a left arm?

[GlennB]

Of course for the remaining core to all drop straight down at the same time without toppling, would require simultaneous removal of all remaining support at the same time.

Hmm...

MM

Apart from a quite stunning ignorance of physics and building structure, you also demonstrate here your ignorance of your own CD theory. Which is - that the core was CD'd in advance of the global collapse to facilitate the fall of both Towers.

And yet the lower sections of both cores were the last parts to fall?

Get your act together mm. Logic isn't so hard really.

[wahrheit]

You mean.. Thats NOT a left arm?

I truly hope it is. Unless you want a third leg growing out of your belly button.

[scooby]

It's like Hogwarts this place ... one minute it can't pivot ...

Why should it have fallen over?

For it to fall to one side or another it would have to pivot about a point near to ground level. Since there was several storeys of debris piled up there and the lower columns were still connected to the foundations, it's hard to see how it could pivot.

... the next it needs to fall, and "Hey Presto!" - weak joints everywhere ...

However, since the core (just like all of the steel frame), was made up of lengths of steel with mechanical fixings at the top and bottom, it's not hard to imagine that the tremendous forces applied to these sections during the collapse would have weakened those connections, perhaps more so in some areas than in others.

Why is it hard to see it pivoting at a weak joint dave?

[kookbreaker]

It's like Hogwarts this place ... one minute it can't pivot ...



... the next it needs to fall, and "Hey Presto!" - weak joints everywhere ...



Why is it hard to see it pivoting at a weak joint dave?

Mass, mass, and mass.

Geez. This is desperation straw grabbing.

[scooby]

Mass, mass, and mass.

Geez. This is desperation straw grabbing.

Thank you for providing that while Dave's thinking, is it supposed to mean something?

[Miragememories]

What remained of the core...and there obviously wasn't much, still had a tenuous linkage.

Vertical structures brought down by natural events tend to topple unless engineered to do otherwise.

Keep living in that fantasy land you folks. You can run all you want but you can't hide. I'm sure it feels safe having the "baaa" support but the truth is outside of JREF and you are living on borrowed time.

MM

[scooby]

What remained of the core...and there obviously wasn't much, still had a tenuous linkage.

Vertical structures brought down by natural events tend to topple unless engineered to do otherwise.

Keep living in that fantasy land you folks. You can run all you want but you can't hide. I'm sure it feels safe having the "baaa" support but the truth is outside of JREF and you are living on borrowed time.

MM

Now that's what I call a Skeptic.

[Redtail]

Keep living in that fantasy land you folks. You can run all you want but you can't hide. I'm sure it feels safe having the "baaa" support but the truth is outside of JREF and you are living on borrowed time.


So the people that are searching for the "truth" that will bring the fascist rulers down, will silence the opposition if they should gain the majority?
Hmmmm.

ETA: Vertical structures brought down by natural events tend to topple unless engineered to do otherwise.

Such as?

[kookbreaker]

What remained of the core...and there obviously wasn't much, still had a tenuous linkage.

Vertical structures brought down by natural events tend to topple unless engineered to do otherwise.

Where do you get that nonsense?

Keep living in that fantasy land you folks. You can run all you want but you can't hide. I'm sure it feels safe having the "baaa" support but the truth is outside of JREF and you are living on borrowed time.

"Krusty is coming! Krusty is coming!"

Once again: Contrary to pretty much every engineer in the world.

[apathoid]

What remained of the core...and there obviously wasn't much, still had a tenuous linkage.

Vertical structures brought down by natural events tend to topple unless engineered to do otherwise.

Keep living in that fantasy land you folks. You can run all you want but you can't hide. I'm sure it feels safe having the "baaa" support but the truth is outside of JREF and you are living on borrowed time.

MM

I don't even see what MM and scoobs are getting at here. So, are you two saying that after the controlled demolition of the outer tube(perimeter columns, floors), they performed another one in the core, just so it wouldn't fall over sideways? I thought the CD supposedly took out the core columns - if that was the case, wouldn't the core fail before the outer tube?
Spell it out for me... :confused:

[kookbreaker]

Now that's what I call a Skeptic.

That's what I call an idiot who thinks he's smarter than all the engineers in the world.

[scooby]

Hello,

This is my first post & thread so please take it easy on me! For the past year I have been working for the CIA, FBI, FEMA, NIST, and the Bush administration. The location of my work is not classified as I am well known at the ATS site. To them, I am the beast... the shill..the troll...whatever the favorite term for the day is to label someone with common sense.

My problem, i am not at all good with physics and engineering. I had a question asked of me in regards to the last part of the core than remained standing for a short time after the collapse. I was asked WHY it fell straight down after the global collapse had occurred and why it didn't fall "over". I really don't have an educated guess as to how or why.

Not sure if this has ever been brought up in here. I do come in here often to read the threads, but don't recall ever seeing any such question.

Any help you could give me would be much appreciated.

Thanks

I've got an excellent way you can demonstrate what happened.

You take a piece of plastic drainage pipe about 1 metre long and insert a steel rod the same length.

Now make the steel rod collapse vertically down the pipe.

[scooby]

Quote:
Vertical structures brought down by natural events tend to topple unless engineered to do otherwise.


Such as?

Leaning Tower of Pisa, slowly, for hundreds of years.
Did you miss it?

[Redtail]

I've got an excellent way you can demonstrate what happened.

You take a piece of plastic drainage pipe about 1 metre long and insert a steel rod the same length.

Now make the steel rod collapse vertically down the pipe.

There you have it folks! The core was one solid peice of steel!

[kookbreaker]

I've got an excellent way you can demonstrate what happened.

You take a piece of plastic drainage pipe about 1 metre long and insert a steel rod the same length.

Now make the steel rod collapse vertically down the pipe.

/points and laughs.

You guys still think the tower was some kind of solid mass.

[Redtail]

Leaning Tower of Pisa, slowly, for hundreds of years.
Did you miss it?

I seem to have missed the part where it fell.:confused:

ETA: I also missed the part where they screwed up the foundation for the WTC.

[kookbreaker]

Leaning Tower of Pisa, slowly, for hundreds of years.
Did you miss it?

Ah, so now failure of Pisan foundation surface is the same as a massive fire in a building?

Seriously, what do you have to do to your brain to think these things are equivelant? Hit it with Ball-peen hammers?

[A W Smith]

What remained of the core...and there obviously wasn't much, still had a tenuous linkage.

Vertical structures brought down by natural events tend to topple unless engineered to do otherwise.

Keep living in that fantasy land you folks. You can run all you want but you can't hide. I'm sure it feels safe having the "baaa" support but the truth is outside of JREF and you are living on borrowed time.

MM

I am reminded of a radio tower tragedy in the Midwest if i recall. They were using a guy derrick on top of this huge tower to place an antennae element. The rigging snapped and sheared off one guy wire. want to know which direction the tower fell? straight down. Figure THAT out.

[Rahne Everson]

I've got an excellent way you can demonstrate what happened.

You take a piece of plastic drainage pipe about 1 metre long and insert a steel rod the same length.

Now make the steel rod collapse vertically down the pipe.

Yes because buildings and pipes are made in the same way.[/sarcasm]

[scooby]

There you have it folks! The core was one solid peice of steel!

No it was many pieces of steel, welded and bolted together, we all know that.
But a thin steel rod would represent a vertical column closely enough.
So come on Magneto, try and make it collapse vertically through a drainpipe - without touching it by the way, let gravity do the work for you. See if you can get it to telescope into the ground through a drainpipe. If you can do that, we can bring the boy's home and send you in to finish things off.

[kookbreaker]

But a thin steel rod would represent a vertical column closely enough.


:roll:

[WildCat]

No it was many pieces of steel, welded and bolted together, we all know that.
But a thin steel rod would represent a vertical column closely enough.
So come on Magneto, try and make it collapse vertically through a drainpipe - without touching it by the way, let gravity do the work for you. See if you can get it to telescope into the ground through a drainpipe. If you can do that, we can bring the boy's home and send you in to finish things off.
What makes you think the core columns went straight down? Are you denying they buckled at all?

[kookbreaker]

What makes you think the core columns went straight down? Are you denying they buckled at all?

I think he's trying to bring back that 'telescoping columns' nonsense that Roxdog tried to peddle many moons ago.

[parky76]

The core did not collapse. It was vaporized by the Death Star. Open your eyes and see the truuf!!!

[Rahne Everson]

I am reminded of a radio tower tragedy in the Midwest if i recall. They were using a guy derrick on top of this huge tower to place an antennae element. The rigging snapped and sheared off one guy wire. want to know which direction the tower fell? straight down. Figure THAT out.

I remember seeing video of that, probably on the Discovery Channel or National Geographic. The tower snapped in a few places as the guy wires grew slack and fell straight down. Incidentally so did the remaining core of the Towers in the video I've seen of it.

[scooby]

What makes you think the core columns went straight down? Are you denying they buckled at all?

Mr Herbert's your man, you look up and read his post you'll soon work out which columns we're talking about, I think you'll find this post redundant.

[Redtail]

No it was many pieces of steel, welded and bolted together, we all know that.
But a thin steel rod would represent a vertical column closely enough.
So come on Magneto, try and make it collapse vertically through a drainpipe - without touching it by the way, let gravity do the work for you. See if you can get it to telescope into the ground through a drainpipe. If you can do that, we can bring the boy's home and send you in to finish things off.

So a solid steel rod is the same as shorter rods welded together?

[kookbreaker]

Mr Herbert's your man, you look up and read his post you'll soon work out which columns we're talking about, I think you'll find this post redundant.

In other words, you cannot back up the nonsense you've spewing about metal rods.

[mailman]

Leaning Tower of Pisa, slowly, for hundreds of years.
Did you miss it?

Im not sure if you have noticed BUT the Leaning Tower of Pisa hasnt actually fallen over...yet! :D

Mailman

[GlennB]

What remained of the core...and there obviously wasn't much, still had a tenuous linkage.

MM

but
but
but

You said the core must have been CD'd, as it explains the building's collapse at "freefall" speed !!

But plenty of both cores were left standing while the wall/floors had hit the ground. Please explain this inconsistency.

(note the dust cloud already well up and away
note the substantial UN CD'D core section of WTC1 )



http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc1peelingcorecropped.jpg

[parky76]

Are you positive that that is the core?

[A W Smith]

Im not sure if you have noticed BUT the Leaning Tower of Pisa hasnt actually fallen over...yet! :D

Mailman


And since the leaning tower of Pisa is essentially stacked masonry. Guess what will happen when it does collapse? I predict the top floor will offset the foundation base by no more that 1 1/2 the diameter and then crumble straight down.

[A W Smith]

Are you positive that that is the core?

No thats a collection of 3 inch rebar on four foot centers!:D


JUST KIDDING

:dl:

[WildCat]

but
but
but

You said the core must have been CD'd, as it explains the building's collapse at "freefall" speed !!

But plenty of both cores were left standing while the wall/floors had hit the ground. Please explain this inconsistency.

(note the dust cloud already well up and away
note the substantial UN CD'D core section of WTC1 )



http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc1peelingcorecropped.jpg
And there is part of the core falling to the ground, and it is not at all vertical. In fact, it's horizontal - clearly broke off at a joint and fell over. So much for "vertical collapse".

[AZCat]

I am reminded of a radio tower tragedy in the Midwest if i recall. They were using a guy derrick on top of this huge tower to place an antennae element. The rigging snapped and sheared off one guy wire. want to know which direction the tower fell? straight down. Figure THAT out.

You might be thinking of the Missouri City, Texas TV antenna tower collapse. We discussed this during one of my classes in school (along with several other cases of mechanical failure, including the famous Tacoma Narrows Bridge), and there is a good overview available here (http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/tvtower/tv3.htm) (including some photos and video).

[AZCat]

I've got an excellent way you can demonstrate what happened.

You take a piece of plastic drainage pipe about 1 metre long and insert a steel rod the same length.

Now make the steel rod collapse vertically down the pipe.

Wow.

Your example fails in so many ways to demonstrate anything relevant that I cannot help but think that you don't actually understand the principles involved, rather than just making poor choices about your models.

[scooby]

Im not sure if you have noticed BUT the Leaning Tower of Pisa hasnt actually fallen over...yet! :D

Mailman

Yet you still don't know what 'leaning' means.
How long will they have to keep it there, for you to work it out? ;)

[Redtail]

Yet you still don't know what 'leaning' means.
How long will they have to keep it there, for you to work it out? ;)

So it's an example of collapsing by toppling over even though it hasn't fallen?

(BTW: it's base is a tad smaller that the WTC towers.);)

[scooby]

Wow.

Your example fails in so many ways to demonstrate anything relevant that I cannot help but think that you don't actually understand the principles involved, rather than just making poor choices about your models.

Yeah well guess what - I see a lot of this.

[scooby]

Anyway - does Mr Herbert have enough information to answer his question, that's that main thing. I could post some links to some useful resources on the topic?

[Myriad]

I've got an excellent way you can demonstrate what happened.

You take a piece of plastic drainage pipe about 1 metre long and insert a steel rod the same length.

Now make the steel rod collapse vertically down the pipe.


Good idea, Scooby. But let's do the math to get the thickness of the steel rod correct, okay?

Suppose we assume the steel in the core comprises the entire weight of a fully loaded tower, about 450,000,000 kilograms. This will let you use a lot more steel in the core when you build your scale model, making it stronger. This works out to 75,324 cubic meters of steel. Extended over the 415-meter height of the tower, your mean cross-sectional area of your steel core columns comes to 138 square meters.

In your 1-meter tall square model, that's equivalent to a 2.8 centimeter (just over 1 inch) square steel rod, weighing 6.28 kilograms. That seems pretty strong!

But there's a problem. When you scale a structure, the volume and mass of the steel scale as the cube of the linear scale, which is why your 6.28 kilograms of steel is 1 / (415 * 415 * 415) of the weight of the real tower. But the strength of the columns is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the beam, which scales as the square of the linear scale. Your 2.8-cm square rod is 1 / (415 * 415) as strong as columns with a 138 square meter cross section, but it's only bearing 1 / (415 * 415 * 415) as much weight. So it's 415 times stronger than it should be for the model to really represent the strength of the core.

We could "fix" this by requiring that your 2.8-cm square steel rod, and your pipe, were 415 meters tall instead of 1 meter. That would keep the strength to weight ratio the same as for the full-scale tower. But it would be kind of a funny-looking model. So instead, we divide the cross-sectional area of your model's steel core by a factor of 415, so your model core is now 1.4 millimeters (less than 1/16") square. However, for the strength to weight ratio to be the right, it still has to weigh the same 6-1/4 kilograms, so attach small lead weights to it at regular intevals in such a way that the weights don't add any structural strength. Note that this extra weight doesn't represent the weight of any other part of the towers (floors, etc.), it's keeping the weight correct in scale for your model steel core itself.

Now, how well do you think a 1.4 millimeter steel rod, a meter long, loaded so as to weigh 14 pounds, will stand up? How rigid will it be? We're talking about basically a piece of thick wire here. Even if it doesn't bend, it's going to sway like crazy. So would a 415-meter tall core made of one single solid steel column. That makes it an unusable design for a building. So what you need to do for your model is make it much more rigid, without using any more steel. In other words, you have to shave your 1.4-millimeter wire into much thinner steel filaments, and build a meter-high tower out of it that can support 6-1/4 kilograms of evenly distributed weight. You could do that by making a multi-column core and outer columns and floor trusses, all from filaments that add up to 1 meter of 1.4-millimeter-square wire.

Actually, you'll have to do it with half that amount of wire, to allow for half of the 6-1/4 kilograms of weight to represent other things besides the steel framework, like floor concrete, windows, facing, machinery, furniture, people, etc.

Can this be done? Certainly; it was done full-scale in the real towers, after all. But if you could manage to build such a model (perhaps creating little hollow box columns with walls thinner than aluminum foil), do you think it would be able to arrest progressive collapse if you drop its own top floors onto its lower floors? Do you think its core should be able to topple sideways after being heavily damaged by the rest of the model collapsing around it? Let's see if you're a good enough engineer to get the thing to stand up at all, before you claim that it can arrest collapse or topple in one piece.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[AZCat]

Yeah well guess what - I see a lot of this.

I'm not surprised.

I'm not going to tell you to let other people dictate what you do (because that's poor advice) but I am going to recommend that perhaps you think about why you are seeing comments like this so often. Perhaps the reason might be that you don't actually have a very good grasp of engineering principles? That's not a bad thing - not everyone needs to be an engineer in order for the world to function (in fact, that might be detrimental) but there are some things that do require some knowledge of in order to make sense of them. One of these is the WTC towers and their collapses on September 11th. If you have an opinion about it, that's fine - but to pretend to know more than you do is just foolish.

[NobbyNobbs]

Good idea, Scooby. But let's do the math to get the thickness of the steel rod correct, okay?

Suppose we assume the steel in the core comprises the entire weight of a fully loaded tower, about 450,000,000 kilograms. This will let you use a lot more steel in the core when you build your scale model, making it stronger. This works out to 75,324 cubic meters of steel. Extended over the 415-meter height of the tower, your mean cross-sectional area of your steel core columns comes to 138 square meters.

In your 1-meter tall square model, that's equivalent to a 2.8 centimeter (just over 1 inch) square steel rod, weighing 6.28 kilograms. That seems pretty strong!

But there's a problem. When you scale a structure, the volume and mass of the steel scale as the cube of the linear scale, which is why your 6.28 kilograms of steel is 1 / (415 * 415 * 415) of the weight of the real tower. But the strength of the columns is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the beam, which scales as the square of the linear scale. Your 2.8-cm square rod is 1 / (415 * 415) as strong as columns with a 138 square meter cross section, but it's only bearing 1 / (415 * 415 * 415) as much weight. So it's 415 times stronger than it should be for the model to really represent the strength of the core.

We could "fix" this by requiring that your 2.8-cm square steel rod, and your pipe, were 415 meters tall instead of 1 meter. That would keep the strength to weight ratio the same as for the full-scale tower. But it would be kind of a funny-looking model. So instead, we divide the cross-sectional area of your model's steel core by a factor of 415, so your model core is now 1.4 millimeters (less than 1/16") square. However, for the strength to weight ratio to be the right, it still has to weigh the same 6-1/4 kilograms, so attach small lead weights to it at regular intevals in such a way that the weights don't add any structural strength. Note that this extra weight doesn't represent the weight of any other part of the towers (floors, etc.), it's keeping the weight correct in scale for your model steel core itself.

Now, how well do you think a 1.4 millimeter steel rod, a meter long, loaded so as to weigh 14 pounds, will stand up? How rigid will it be? We're talking about basically a piece of thick wire here. Even if it doesn't bend, it's going to sway like crazy. So would a 415-meter tall core made of one single solid steel column. That makes it an unusable design for a building. So what you need to do for your model is make it much more rigid, without using any more steel. In other words, you have to shave your 1.4-millimeter wire into much thinner steel filaments, and build a meter-high tower out of it that can support 6-1/4 kilograms of evenly distributed weight. You could do that by making a multi-column core and outer columns and floor trusses, all from filaments that add up to 1 meter of 1.4-millimeter-square wire.

Actually, you'll have to do it with half that amount of wire, to allow for half of the 6-1/4 kilograms of weight to represent other things besides the steel framework, like floor concrete, windows, facing, machinery, furniture, people, etc.

Can this be done? Certainly; it was done full-scale in the real towers, after all. But if you could manage to build such a model (perhaps creating little hollow box columns with walls thinner than aluminum foil), do you think it would be able to arrest progressive collapse if you drop its own top floors onto its lower floors? Do you think its core should be able to topple sideways after being heavily damaged by the rest of the model collapsing around it? Let's see if you're a good enough engineer to get the thing to stand up at all, before you claim that it can arrest collapse or topple in one piece.

Respectfully,
Myriad


Wow. Well done, sir, well done.

[AZCat]

Good idea, Scooby. But let's do the math to get the thickness of the steel rod correct, okay?

Suppose...

words, words, words (but beautifully written ones, for sure)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Except that by changing the geometry of the model you've changed the structural response - the slenderness ratio, for example, is dependent on the relationship between the length of a column and the radius of gyration (which is dependent on cross-section). You could use the same geometry, but with a different material - except that doing so would present its own set of problems. You haven't mentioned anything about heat transfer either, which can get really nasty with that fourth power in the radiative component.

I have a suggestion: why don't you use sophisticated engineering computer models to perform this simulation? You could enlist the help of knowledgeable persons (http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/) in performing smaller tests of the elements of your computer model for use in validation, and then you wouldn't have to go through all this trouble. When you finish, you might even produce some sort of report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/) so the public can peruse your work. Sounds like a nifty idea, huh?

[DavidJames]

Except that by changing the geometry of the model you've changed the structural response - the slenderness ratio, for example, is dependent on the relationship between the length of a column and the radius of gyration (which is dependent on cross-section). You could use the same geometry, but with a different material - except that doing so would present its own set of problems. You haven't mentioned anything about heat transfer either, which can get really nasty with that fourth power in the radiative component.

I have a suggestion: why don't you use sophisticated engineering computer models to perform this simulation? You could enlist the help of knowledgeable persons (http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/) in performing smaller tests of the elements of your computer model for use in validation, and then you wouldn't have to go through all this trouble. When you finish, you might even produce some sort of report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/) so the public can peruse your work. Sounds like a nifty idea, huh?Who needs that sort of thing when uneducated, inexperienced people can look at youtube videos and using nothing but their imaginations(cause basically, that's all they've got), come up with pretend models using only common materials found around the house. :rolleyes:

[maccy]

Hello,

This is my first post & thread so please take it easy on me! For the past year I have been working for the CIA, FBI, FEMA, NIST, and the Bush administration. The location of my work is not classified as I am well known at the ATS site. To them, I am the beast... the shill..the troll...whatever the favorite term for the day is to label someone with common sense.

My problem, i am not at all good with physics and engineering. I had a question asked of me in regards to the last part of the core than remained standing for a short time after the collapse. I was asked WHY it fell straight down after the global collapse had occurred and why it didn't fall "over". I really don't have an educated guess as to how or why.

Not sure if this has ever been brought up in here. I do come in here often to read the threads, but don't recall ever seeing any such question.

Any help you could give me would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Mr Herbert can you post a link to the discussion where you're being asked these questions?

If you leave off the http://www the forum's anti-spam software will let you post the link (once you get to 15 posts, you'll be able to post links regardless).

[beachnut]

Anyway - does Mr Herbert have enough information to answer his question, that's that main thing. I could post some links to some useful resources on the topic?
He wants facts not fiction.

[scooby]

Except that by changing the geometry of the model you've changed the structural response.

But isn't that standard practice in scientific America these days?
Didn't NIST change the geometry of the model in order to induce a failure?
I heard they couldn't get it to fail using the real values so they changed them, oh like for instance, metal trusses sagging 3 or 4 inches in a fire - let's make that 42 inches. That kind of thing.

[Redtail]

But isn't that standard practice in scientific America these days?
Didn't NIST change the geometry of the model in order to induce a failure?
I heard they couldn't get it to fail using the real values so they changed them, oh like for instance, metal trusses sagging 3 or 4 inches in a fire - let's make that 42 inches. That kind of thing.

I heard my Panthers "won" Super Bowl XLI from my roomie for a year. (He bet they would cover the spread)

Where did you hear they changed the values?

[uk_dave]

But isn't that standard practice in scientific America these days?
Didn't NIST change the geometry of the model in order to induce a failure?
I heard they couldn't get it to fail using the real values so they changed them, oh like for instance, metal trusses sagging 3 or 4 inches in a fire - let's make that 42 inches. That kind of thing.

Check the photographs of the side of the tower before collapse and you'll see the floor trusses are sagging by alot more than 3 inches.

Can you prove NIST was wrong in it's figures?

Oh and my earlier point, which was at odds with your preconceived ideas and therefore subject to your lame attempt at scorn, still stands.

The core columns failed at the connections due to the stresses imposed upon them by:
Failure of the trusses (i.e being pulled by the sagging trusses)
Fire
The collapse of thousands of tons of debrisIn just the same way that the core was :

Not Concrete
Not built to be freestanding from foundation to roof while the rest of the construction was built around it (important one as this appears to be a cornerstone of the 'truther' fantasy regarding the towers)
Not made of continuous lengths of steel
Not crossbraced at the corners (remember the crane towers?)..the 'truthers' have not the faintest idea about construction of steel framed multistorey structures, the effect of fire on steel or the effect of gravity on an unstable structure.

[Totovader]

But isn't that standard practice in scientific America these days?
Didn't NIST change the geometry of the model in order to induce a failure?
I heard they couldn't get it to fail using the real values so they changed them, oh like for instance, metal trusses sagging 3 or 4 inches in a fire - let's make that 42 inches. That kind of thing.

"That kind of thing"? That seems to be a rather obvious way of injecting a completely ridiculous lie so that you don't actually have to do any research.

Change the geometry of the model?

Come on, be honest- you have a chicken wire model, don't you? You're just looking for an excuse to whip it out... go on, post pictures of your chicken wire model.

:dig:

[David Wong]

I heard they couldn't get it to fail using the real values so they changed them...

I heard George W. Bush is bigfoot in disguise.

The moment we can convict people of complicity in mass murder by unsubstantiated "I heard" statements, is the moment we can give up any idea of justice or even kind of skeptical inquiry.

Evidence, young man. Bring evidence.

[gumboot]

I heard they couldn't get it to fail using the real values so they changed them, oh like for instance, metal trusses sagging 3 or 4 inches in a fire - let's make that 42 inches. That kind of thing.



Photographic evidence reveals some of the floors in the impact zone sagged a distance in excess of a floor height.

In other words, floor 98 was sagging below what used to be the floor level fo 97.

Doing a fast and dirty calculation, that's about 4m, or almost 160 inches.

By the way... the floor trusses didn't fail, incase you failed to pick that piece of info up when you read all 10,000 pages of the NIST report. It's quite important, so I figured you would have registered that little detail at least.

-Gumboot

[Andúril]

Hello,

This is my first post & thread so please take it easy on me! For the past year I have been working for the CIA, FBI, FEMA, NIST, and the Bush administration. The location of my work is not classified as I am well known at the ATS site. To them, I am the beast... the shill..the troll...whatever the favorite term for the day is to label someone with common sense.

My problem, i am not at all good with physics and engineering. I had a question asked of me in regards to the last part of the core than remained standing for a short time after the collapse. I was asked WHY it fell straight down after the global collapse had occurred and why it didn't fall "over". I really don't have an educated guess as to how or why.

Not sure if this has ever been brought up in here. I do come in here often to read the threads, but don't recall ever seeing any such question.

Any help you could give me would be much appreciated.

Thanks

There really is nothing special. When a 300-meter tall piece of a column is angled for just a few degrees, its own weight causes an enormous twist moment near its "root" and it simply snaps from some joint or other weak spot. Then the rest of the column comes down in freefall, with gravity giving it a good amount of kinetic energy. When the lower end of the column then hits the ground, this force breaks or bends it practically immediately and so on. In order for it to fall over as a single piece it should either be very strong and stiff or rotate very fast to eliminate the effects of gravity. Build a tall, thin column of, for example, 1x2 Lego blocks and angle it a bit - the same principles apply in both cases. Not entirely, though, because it's impossible to accurately model anything big in a small scale, because things like g and the properties of materials are not scaled down in the same ratio. The bigger the model is, the better.

[westprog]

One of the commonest errors of the CT's is the assumption that a scale model will demonstrate the same behaviour as the full size thing. It's been demonstrated that this is not the case, repeatedly. The most obvious reason is that if scale models exhibited the same behaviour as the full size building, then architecture would be a very easy discipline. Rather than complex calculations of weight and force, they could just throw a model together and see if it stays up.

[gumboot]

One of the commonest errors of the CT's is the assumption that a scale model will demonstrate the same behaviour as the full size thing. It's been demonstrated that this is not the case, repeatedly. The most obvious reason is that if scale models exhibited the same behaviour as the full size building, then architecture would be a very easy discipline. Rather than complex calculations of weight and force, they could just throw a model together and see if it stays up.


It depends on what it's for. Scale models, for example, are perfectly fine for doing wind tests. Using them to test structural integrity is absurd. Using them to study complex catastrophic events is simply insane. Building a scale model of the WTC out of [insert CTer building material here] in order to understand 9/11 is about as useful as using your bathtub to replicate Hurricane Katrina.

-Gumboot

[mailman]

Yet you still don't know what 'leaning' means.
How long will they have to keep it there, for you to work it out? ;)

So lemme see if I have got this right.

You are using something as an example of what you believe should happen but your example HASNT actually fallen over yet!

BWAAAAAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA :D

Mailman

[scooby]

I heard my Panthers "won" Super Bowl XLI from my roomie for a year. (He bet they would cover the spread)

Where did you hear they changed the values?

Steve Jones mentioned it in this video I came across recently ...

9/11 Truth: NIST Report Debunked
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cvkz_911-truth-nist-report-debunked

[Zep]

Just one word: HUSH-A-BOOM! ;)

[kookbreaker]

Steve Jones mentioned it in this video I came across recently ...

9/11 Truth: NIST Report Debunked
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cvkz_911-truth-nist-report-debunked

So you pretty much swallow any lie that the CT crowd sends down the pipe?

The 'NIST manipulated the model' lie has been around for a while. It is told by fools who do not know how computer modeling works, or outright liars who want their fantasy to be true by any means.

Either way, you are wrong.

[WildCat]

Steve Jones mentioned it in this video I came across recently ...
Did it ever occur to you to check the NIST report for yourself to see if Jones is telling the truth? If you did, you'd discover that Jones is a liar, a charlatan, and a profiteer taking advantage of the feeble-minded.

[Myriad]

Except that by changing the geometry of the model you've changed the structural response - the slenderness ratio, for example, is dependent on the relationship between the length of a column and the radius of gyration (which is dependent on cross-section). You could use the same geometry, but with a different material - except that doing so would present its own set of problems. You haven't mentioned anything about heat transfer either, which can get really nasty with that fourth power in the radiative component.

Granted. And I understand and agree with the point you were leading toward (directed at Scooby), to let experts do the analysis they (and they alone) are trained and qualified to do.

However, you've misconstrued the intended purpose of the model I described. It is not intended to perform dynamical analysis of precise failure scenarios, nor even to be actually built at all. It is to give the audience a more accurate (not completely accurate, but more accurate) mental model of what a scale model of a building would have to be like to truly reflect a real building's ratio of structural strength to weight load. Instead of chicken wire or erector set struts or even paper, such a model would have to be built of gossamer-like filaments of steel and loaded with additional weight as I described. Alternatively, as you suggested, it might be built of a rigid material much weaker than steel (strands of dry angel hair pasta might be close, within an order of mangitude or two, but would still have to be loaded with extra weight).

As a thought experiment, such a model is far more interesting and gives a far better intuitive sense of approximately "what would happen" under various conditions than Scooby's steel-rod-in-a-pipe. For instance, you couldn't pick it up with your hands (your fingers would just tear through it) just as a real building cannot be lifted up without evenly lifting every vertical structural member at the base. You couldn't tilt it or even knock it over; as soon as that 14 pounds of weight were no longer centered over the delicate support members, it would buckle at the base and collapse downward.

To paraphrase a well-known Asimov passage: Scooby's conceptual model, a meter-high steel-rod-in-a-pipe, is wrong. My conceptual model, of 14 grams of steel filaments forming a meter-tall framework supporting 6 kilograms of load, is also wrong. But if you think my model is just as wrong as Scooby's model, you're wronger than both of us put together!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Of course for the remaining core to all drop straight down at the same time without toppling, would require simultaneous removal of all remaining support at the same time.

Hmm...
lol... These really are some amazing demolition charges you people dream up.

[AZCat]

Granted. And I understand and agree with the point you were leading toward (directed at Scooby), to let experts do the analysis they (and they alone) are trained and qualified to do.

However, you've misconstrued the intended purpose of the model I described. It is not intended...

<words, words, words> (again quite well-written)

...
To paraphrase a well-known Asimov passage: Scooby's conceptual model, a meter-high steel-rod-in-a-pipe, is wrong. My conceptual model, of 14 grams of steel filaments forming a meter-tall framework supporting 6 kilograms of load, is also wrong. But if you think my model is just as wrong as Scooby's model, you're wronger than both of us put together!

Respectfully,
Myriad

I understand that you were illustrating a certain point, without planning on building the actual model. But since I have seen several "truthers" use their chicken-wire models for thermal tests, I thought it would be important to point out that there are more problems than the ones you discuss.

Any model, as long as the limitations are understood, isn't "wrong". Your model is only intended to test certain things and is capable of properly doing so (provided it is constructed as specified). Using your model for testing other phenomena (such as heat transfer or buckling) is outside the scope of the model and will give faulty responses, but again - that doesn't invalidate its responses for the phenomena it was intended to study.

Please don't take my "riffing" off of your post as criticism - you explicated this far better than I could have.

[scooby]

Did it ever occur to you to check the NIST report for yourself to see if Jones is telling the truth? If you did, you'd discover that Jones is a liar, a charlatan, and a profiteer taking advantage of the feeble-minded.

Never, it's conclusion tells you all you need to know about its content.
I must say it was news to me that Steve Jones lied about this though - are you sure?

[The Almond]

Never, it's conclusion tells you all you need to know about its content.

Would you care to tell me what NIST's conclusion was?

I must say it was news to me that Steve Jones lied about this though - are you sure?
Jones uses a lot of out-of-context quotations and misrepresentations of the actual report. It depends on your definition of a lie, but I do belive he deliberately trims and edits his quotes to change the meaning of them. That's dishonest, at least.

[twinstead]

Personally, I am totally not qualified to judge the validity of Jone's statements. All I have is what his peers and members of the structural engineering community have to say about them. To be kind, they are singularly unimpressed.

Franky, what scooby and others like him has to say about them makes no impact in my decision on who to believe at all.

I suppose the mainstream could be totally wrong about him. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for somebody with relevant qualifications to come to his aid however.

[scooby]

Would you care to tell me what NIST's conclusion was?

Jones uses a lot of out-of-context quotations and misrepresentations of the actual report. It depends on your definition of a lie, but I do belive he deliberately trims and edits his quotes to change the meaning of them. That's dishonest, at least.

Don't worry, I'm not interested in your beliefs, we'll let Wildcat get to the bottom of this one for us. He either lied or he didn't. I'm sure he'd be interested in the source of the accusation. If this is untrue, and represents some sort of attempt to discredit him, that John Albanese character was talking about some sort of civil liberties action and is looking for information like this. This could end up being part of that, you never know. Who's saying he lied about the NIST report Wildcat, where did you read that?

[The Almond]

Don't worry, I'm not interested in your beliefs, we'll let Wildcat get to the bottom of this one for us. He either lied or he didn't. I'm sure he'd be interested in the source of the accusation. If this is untrue, and represents some sort of attempt to discredit him, that John Albanese character was talking about some sort of civil liberties action and is looking for information like this. This could end up being part of that, you never know. Who's saying he lied about the NIST report Wildcat, where did you read that?
So, to answer my question, you have no idea what NIST's conclusions were, and you celebrate your ignorance in the matter.

[A W Smith]

Never, it's conclusion tells you all you need to know about its content.
I must say it was news to me that Steve Jones lied about this though - are you sure?

So if a new investigation was to come to the same conclusion you would ignore it too? I rest My Case (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2414337&postcount=167).



Edit to add. were Jones lips moving? then he was lying.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's interesting that, when scooby makes a claim and is confronted about it, he claims no interest in actually discussing it...

It's almost as if his only purpose here is to thumb his nose at us.

[Mr.Herbert]

Sorry to "bump" this thread... I just wanted to thank you all for the information I requested. Im hoping my son gets into Northeastern Univertisy to become an engineer...then I will be able to stop bothering you guys.

AboveTopSecret.com is stuck recycling their old theories that have been debunked over and over....actually becoming quite a bore. They are still fighting over the Silverstein quote and the Beam that was cut at an angle.

[CHF]

But a thin steel rod would represent a vertical column closely enough.

Imagine the outrage from twoofers if NIST were to compare the WTC towers to pieces of scrap metal and household items.

[scooby]

Imagine the outrage from twoofers if NIST were to compare the WTC towers to pieces of scrap metal and household items.

Frantically ignoring the concept of the 'scale model'.
It's real dark ages on here with you lot isn't it?

[CHF]

Frantically ignoring the concept of the 'scale model'.
It's real dark ages on here with you lot isn't it?

Pd, what's your background on these issues?

[scooby]

Anyway, where's Wildcat with the source of this libel against Professor Jones? I wasn't joking about the civil liberties case that is being researched and prepared, and I'm very keen to see its successful progress. Absent the source of the libel, I'll be forced to quote Wildcat and this forum.

Interesting times eh? Defamation can be quite serious ...

"As social networking sites and internet blogs continue to increase in both popularity and use, the opportunities for defamatory and libelous actions increase proportionally. Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation. Slander is generally spoken defamation, while ‘libel’ is written. Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality."

Operators of blogs are generally immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites, as long as they did not contribute to the posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website which allegedly published defamatory statements provided by a third party was eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if the online service provider plays an active role in soliciting information from users that leads to the defamatory act, the operator may not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the CDA.

And if you read this carefully - it looks like the whole JREF forum could be dragged into it - as it encourages libelious comments of this nature - under the banner of 'skepticism'.

Ho ho ho, it just gets better and better...

"Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living person’s reputation."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Defamation-and-Slander-on-the-Internet&id=422889

He could make a killing on here.
Of course nothing might come of it - but it's good to know that if anything does, it's all recorded here for posterity.

Who's saying he lied Wildcat?

Link?

[DavidJames]

..drivel totally irrelevant to the subject of the thread removed...Do all tin hatters have A.D.D.?

[beachnut]

Anyway, where's Wildcat with the source of this libel against Professor Jones? I wasn't joking about the civil liberties case that is being researched and prepared, and I'm very keen to see its successful progress. Absent the source of the libel, I'll be forced to quote Wildcat and this forum.

Interesting times eh? Defamation can be quite serious ...

"As social networking sites and internet blogs continue to increase in both popularity and use, the opportunities for defamatory and libelous actions increase proportionally. Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation. Slander is generally spoken defamation, while ‘libel’ is written. Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality."

Operators of blogs are generally immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites, as long as they did not contribute to the posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website which allegedly published defamatory statements provided by a third party was eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if the online service provider plays an active role in soliciting information from users that leads to the defamatory act, the operator may not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the CDA.

And if you read this carefully - it looks like the whole JREF forum could be dragged into it - as it encourages libelious comments of this nature - under the banner of 'skepticism'.

Ho ho ho, it just gets better and better...

"Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living person’s reputation."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Defamation-and-Slander-on-the-Internet&id=422889

He could make a killing on here.
Of course nothing might come of it - but it's good to know that if anything does, it's all recorded here for posterity.

Who's saying he lied Wildcat?

Link?
Are you threatening legal action? First you have to prove the liar is not a liar? Since all 9/11 truthers are misleading people telling them it is an inside job or explosives were used, and they can not prove it. Their misleading statement are lies by definition. But then if you have some facts you can try to do what?

So are you threatening legal action for what?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Imagine the outrage from twoofers if NIST were to compare the WTC towers to pieces of scrap metal and household items.
They complain loudly enough about the "core is a hollow tube" statement (paraphrased). I guess they were expecting chicken wire.

[scooby]

Are you threatening legal action? First you have to prove the liar is not a liar? Since all 9/11 truthers are misleading people telling them it is an inside job or explosives were used, and they can not prove it. Their misleading statement are lies by definition. But then if you have some facts you can try to do what?

So are you threatening legal action for what?

Proving that Prof Steve Jones has not misquoted NIST will be a trivial matter to demonstrate.

No I'm not threatening legal action - that will be up to Prof Jones or possibly John Albanese if it is considered part of a broader smear campaign. All I'm after is the source of this claim that Wildcat made about Prof Jones lying and misquoting NIST. You'd think he would provide it as he seems so certain and he doesn't exactly mince his words, so where did he get it from ...

Did it ever occur to you to check the NIST report for yourself to see if Jones is telling the truth? If you did, you'd discover that Jones is a liar, a charlatan, and a profiteer taking advantage of the feeble-minded.

I mean, did it ever occur to Wildcat that all anybody has to do is check the NIST report themselves to ascertain the truth of these serious accusations? It's not exactly rocket science - read the bit in double quotes that Prof Jones quotes from the NIST report, and then read the NIST report. Pick a large number, double it. Be as skeptical as you like but get your cheque book out and pay.

Also, has it occurred to you, that this JREF forum is no tin-pot blog? It seems to be a very well run and well financed operation which means one thing - ch-ching - $$$$$$$.

I would love to be sitting in court opposite somebody with deep pockets making false claims like this about me, or liable for encouraging them and hosting them. But let the lawyers work it out.

So where did he get it from?

And by the way, is it also your contention that Professor Jones is a liar and has misquoted NIST in his work?

[A W Smith]

And by the way, is it also your contention that Professor Jones is a liar

yes.. so sue me.